Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Trump Presidency...

That’s a correlation. Not necessarily a causal link there. There could be all sorts of confounding variables.
The members of my club all receive Snap
benefits and have had their day(s) in court. But they are the kinds of people who do more harm than good, and take away money from those in need. I would love to take the money my program is budgeted to have and use it to plug holes for say school lunches or LIEAP. But I am an a$$hole like that.
 

happyuk

War Hero
Hunter Biden has a tattoo of the Finger Lakes on his back. Bizarre.

1603803271075.png
 
I can go with 20 year term limits etc.

But packing the court will just destroy it’s legitimacy, and cement its demise and irrelevance in short order.

I think 20 years is far too long.

As @Bladensburg says, you want someone on that court who’s got some time in, not what is essentially an amateur political appointee.

I believe there’s a minimum age limit for POTUS of 35...it’s not unreasonable to say that to be on the most important court in the land you need at least x years as a lawyer and y years as a judge at various levels before you get to even be considered for SCOTUS.
 
I can go with 20 year term limits etc.

But packing the court will just destroy it’s legitimacy, and cement its demise and irrelevance in short order.

Any chance you can nip back in your TARDIS and warn Mitch McConnell about the issue of naked partisan politics on the supreme court?
 
The members of my club all receive Snap
benefits and have had their day(s) in court. But they are the kinds of people who do more harm than good, and take away money from those in need. I would love to take the money my program is budgeted to have and use it to plug holes for say school lunches or LIEAP. But I am an a$$hole like that.

That may be true but it’s got little to do with the causal relationship you were implying before.
 
I think 20 years is far too long.

As @Bladensburg says, you want someone on that court who’s got some time in, not what is essentially an amateur political appointee.

I believe there’s a minimum age limit for POTUS of 35...it’s not unreasonable to say that to be on the most important court in the land you need at least x years as a lawyer and y years as a judge at various levels before you get to even be considered for SCOTUS.
The terms can be negotiated, and something appropriate selected. But this is the middle ground approach to conflict resolution. But I would also make this go hand in hand for term limits for all elected officials.
 
I can go with 20 year term limits etc.

But packing the court will just destroy it’s legitimacy, and cement its demise and irrelevance in short order.

Isn’t it’s legitimacy already seriously compromised by the opportunistic appointment of this latest judge?

on the last occasion that similar circumstances occurred, the republicans took the opposite view and wouldn’t make an appointment.

The turnabout from their previous position couldn’t be a more blatant manoeuvre if they’d sent a battleship or an aircraft carrier up the Potomac waving huge banners all over their decks declaring to everybody that they can all sod off because it’s their train set and they can do whatever they want despite the previous protocol that they set in place.

Well, it isn’t going to be their train set for much longer and when they gripe and bitch about whatever happens to equalise the lopsided playing field that is now the Supreme Court more fairly, all anybody has to do is remind them that they started it!
 
Oh dear, how sad, too bad.

'They say karma’s a bitch, but those on the left might not use such a disparaging term for her now that the coronavirus has begun sweeping through Vice President Pence’s staff and has also set its sights on some of the top hosts at Fox News. That’s right, according to reports, the Vice President’s chief of staff has tested positive, as have four other staff members. Meanwhile, at Fox News, that bastion of misinformation about Covid-19, someone on a private flight home from the last presidential debate has apparently tested positive, potentially infecting the likes of Brett Baer, Dana Perino and Juan Williams, among others.'

 
The terms can be negotiated, and something appropriate selected. But this is the middle ground approach to conflict resolution. But I would also make this go hand in hand for term limits for all elected officials.

I think the necessary voting majority could also be reinstated.

If SCOTUS was appointed for shorter terms it would mean that the appointments process could concentrate on someone’s actual ability.

You make a good point about term limits for Congress too. They should at the very least have a term away every now and then.
 
Isn’t it’s legitimacy already seriously compromised by the opportunistic appointment of this latest judge?

on the last occasion that similar circumstances occurred, the republicans took the opposite view and wouldn’t make an appointment.

The turnabout from their previous position couldn’t be a more blatant manoeuvre if they’d sent a battleship or an aircraft carrier up the Potomac waving huge banners all over their decks declaring to everybody that they can all sod off because it’s their train set and they can do whatever they want despite the previous protocol that they set in place.

Well, it isn’t going to be their train set for much longer and when they gripe and bitch about whatever happens to equalise the lopsided playing field that is now the Supreme Court more fairly, all anybody has to do is remind them that they started it!
Harry Reid started this issue my short sighted friend.

But packing a court, will ensure a lot of states ignore it. Which leaves you with an enforcement problem, that you are not prepared for.
 
Maybe it's about time the Yanks did away with the ridiculous idea that the kind of justice you get is dependant on whatever twonk last occupied the Whitehouse long enough to stuff the supreme court with partisan judges. It's tin-pot dictatorship stuff.

Bear in mind also that if Coney Barrett was British with her about five years of actual practise she'd barely be considered a trained barrister let alone experienced enough to be a judge and certainly not an appeals or supreme court judge.

I do find it ironic that she's called Coney though, considering that she appears to breed like a rabbit.
How many UK Judges voted for Brexit, or Boris Johnson in 2019 ?
How many Teachers voted for Brexit, or Boris Johnson in 2019 ?
How many Media types in the UK voted for Brexit, or Boris Johnson in 2019 ?
At least in america things have some kind of transparancy.
 
Harry Reid started this issue my short sighted friend.

But packing a court, will ensure a lot of states ignore it. Which leaves you with an enforcement problem, that you are not prepared for.
Sorry mate but you seem to not have been paying any attention to recent developments.

It’s already been packed.

Because that has happened, it now actually needs sorting out to make it more balanced and topical to the needs of modern America!
 
How many UK Judges voted for Brexit, or Boris Johnson in 2019 ?
How many Teachers voted for Brexit, or Boris Johnson in 2019 ?
How many Media types in the UK voted for Brexit, or Boris Johnson in 2019 ?
At least in america things have some kind of transparancy.

More errant nonsense.

The right (for that’s what it is) to a secret ballot was a hard-won battle in the Great Reform Act of the 19th century. It protects against intimidation. You know, like those ‘shy Tories’ you mentioned?

The one place where this DOESN’T happen - and quite rightly - is in the division lobbies of the Houses of Parliament. You already get to see how parliamentarians vote.

But you’ll ignore this. As ever. You weak ****.
 
Sorry mate but you seem to not have been paying any attention to recent developments.

It’s already been packed.

Because that has happened, it now actually needs sorting out to make it more balanced and topical to the needs of modern America!
The courts composition is a reflection of the rules of the game, and one side playing that game better.

Be very careful about your positions, because what is modern America?
 
How many UK Judges voted for Brexit, or Boris Johnson in 2019 ?
How many Teachers voted for Brexit, or Boris Johnson in 2019 ?
How many Media types in the UK voted for Brexit, or Boris Johnson in 2019 ?
At least in america things have some kind of transparancy.
We like privacy in some matters.
 
But Obama was guilty of rule by executive decree and hopefully the powers that be will see how when abused can lead to what we have now. But I also fear if one side wins they are going to take it as a mantle for payback, and will push to far. But the counter movement won’t be the Tea Party this time.

Steamy, I would have a look at your recent presidential history before making a statement like the emboldened one above. Because it's wrong.

Executive decrees by president are:
  • Trump/Reagan - Joint first with 48/year
  • Bush 41 - Third with 41/year
  • Obama _ Fourth with 34.5/year
  • Bush 43 - Fifth with 34/year
  • Clinton - Sixth with 31/year
Notice anything connecting 1, 2 and 3?

It would appear that ruling by presidential fiat is not exactly the province of the Democrats.




And do you really think that offing Bin Laden was a bad thing?

Was offing Qasem Soleimani a good thing or a bad thing (whilst I don't GAF about him he was at least an official of a nation state and offing him could be regarded as a rather unfortunate precedent).

Bring on the counter battery fire of multiple launched whataboutery.
 
I can go with 20 year term limits etc.

But packing the court will just destroy it’s legitimacy, and cement its demise and irrelevance in short order.
Like so many things about the US's somewhat antiquated political settlement (eg the electoral college allocation system) the US supreme court seems to be set up for a much smaller country. More ridiculous is that judges are expected to deal with modern issues by interpreting the intentions of a small group of people from a time when the double-acting steam engine was the bleeding edge of technology and blood-letting an accepted medical treatment.
Having just nine justices and them being life or long-term appointments means that the political reward (itself a disgusting idea when talking about justice) for jiggery-pokery is massively out of proportion to the very low political risk and effort involved in appointing them. If you can pack the court as the Republicans have done in the last four years then it effectively gives them a veto that persists even if they are out of power for the next ten or twenty years.

Frankly I think that for a start a supreme court needs a cap at two or three times as many members along with minimum age and experience levels, a mandatory retirement age and a maximum number of members that can be appointed in any given four-year period. The aim should be to make it so that it's in the parties' interests to get people who are sensible, experienced, politically neutral and above all just onto the court rather than ideologues. To my mind if you can point to a judge (any judge) and say with real confidence that they are politically conservative or politically liberal (by the American definition) then you have problems.
 

Latest Threads

Top